Honestly says it all.Find a trading guild that works for you.
Guild dues are on the hands of guilds, not ZOS. When you say you don't blame the guilds, you are incorrect in that assumption. It is 100% up to the guild on how much to charge dues if any.
MLGProPlayer wrote: »Guild dues are on the hands of guilds, not ZOS. When you say you don't blame the guilds, you are incorrect in that assumption. It is 100% up to the guild on how much to charge dues if any.
That's not entirely true. The trader system forces guilds to institute minimum sales requirements/dues.
Some guilds are better equipped than others at making bids. Some guilds will have GMs/key members who make tens of millions of gold weekly and can rely on their donations to make bids without a high sales requirement for the members. Other guilds might not have as many big ticket traders, which means they need to make their gold from taxes and donations/raffles/auctions, thus you'll see higher sales requirements/dues in those guilds.
starkerealm wrote: »MLGProPlayer wrote: »Guild dues are on the hands of guilds, not ZOS. When you say you don't blame the guilds, you are incorrect in that assumption. It is 100% up to the guild on how much to charge dues if any.
That's not entirely true. The trader system forces guilds to institute minimum sales requirements/dues.
Some guilds are better equipped than others at making bids. Some guilds will have GMs/key members who make tens of millions of gold weekly and can rely on their donations to make bids without a high sales requirement for the members. Other guilds might not have as many big ticket traders, which means they need to make their gold from taxes and donations/raffles/auctions, thus you'll see higher sales requirements/dues in those guilds.
That's not entirely true. The system does incentivize pooling resources, you can point the finger at ZOS for that. But, it doesn't force quotas or dues.
I'm sure a number of the people who institute quotas or dues gleefully point the finger at ZOS and say, "See, they're forcing us to do it," but it was, ultimately, their choice.
starkerealm wrote: »MLGProPlayer wrote: »Guild dues are on the hands of guilds, not ZOS. When you say you don't blame the guilds, you are incorrect in that assumption. It is 100% up to the guild on how much to charge dues if any.
That's not entirely true. The trader system forces guilds to institute minimum sales requirements/dues.
Some guilds are better equipped than others at making bids. Some guilds will have GMs/key members who make tens of millions of gold weekly and can rely on their donations to make bids without a high sales requirement for the members. Other guilds might not have as many big ticket traders, which means they need to make their gold from taxes and donations/raffles/auctions, thus you'll see higher sales requirements/dues in those guilds.
That's not entirely true. The system does incentivize pooling resources, you can point the finger at ZOS for that. But, it doesn't force quotas or dues.
I'm sure a number of the people who institute quotas or dues gleefully point the finger at ZOS and say, "See, they're forcing us to do it," but it was, ultimately, their choice.
you are right, for example, after u23 mournhold guild X has three choices
- a) stay its spot as where it has been for years - inevitable choice here it needs to increase bids
- b) go elsewhere, nothing changed on reqs
- c) get rid of guild
assuming we got scenario a) then gm has two options
- a1) increase reqs
- a2) find gold elsewhere
my logic would go for a1. yes thats a choice
starkerealm wrote: »starkerealm wrote: »MLGProPlayer wrote: »Guild dues are on the hands of guilds, not ZOS. When you say you don't blame the guilds, you are incorrect in that assumption. It is 100% up to the guild on how much to charge dues if any.
That's not entirely true. The trader system forces guilds to institute minimum sales requirements/dues.
Some guilds are better equipped than others at making bids. Some guilds will have GMs/key members who make tens of millions of gold weekly and can rely on their donations to make bids without a high sales requirement for the members. Other guilds might not have as many big ticket traders, which means they need to make their gold from taxes and donations/raffles/auctions, thus you'll see higher sales requirements/dues in those guilds.
That's not entirely true. The system does incentivize pooling resources, you can point the finger at ZOS for that. But, it doesn't force quotas or dues.
I'm sure a number of the people who institute quotas or dues gleefully point the finger at ZOS and say, "See, they're forcing us to do it," but it was, ultimately, their choice.
you are right, for example, after u23 mournhold guild X has three choices
- a) stay its spot as where it has been for years - inevitable choice here it needs to increase bids
- b) go elsewhere, nothing changed on reqs
- c) get rid of guild
assuming we got scenario a) then gm has two options
- a1) increase reqs
- a2) find gold elsewhere
my logic would go for a1. yes thats a choice
A, B, and C, all ignore one, critical, piece of information about the U23 changes: bid placed on traders you do not win, are refunded.
This means, that while the U23 changes did push guilds to having a bit more cash on hand, it was a one time expense. As, an unsuccessful bids are "free."
starkerealm wrote: »starkerealm wrote: »MLGProPlayer wrote: »Guild dues are on the hands of guilds, not ZOS. When you say you don't blame the guilds, you are incorrect in that assumption. It is 100% up to the guild on how much to charge dues if any.
That's not entirely true. The trader system forces guilds to institute minimum sales requirements/dues.
Some guilds are better equipped than others at making bids. Some guilds will have GMs/key members who make tens of millions of gold weekly and can rely on their donations to make bids without a high sales requirement for the members. Other guilds might not have as many big ticket traders, which means they need to make their gold from taxes and donations/raffles/auctions, thus you'll see higher sales requirements/dues in those guilds.
That's not entirely true. The system does incentivize pooling resources, you can point the finger at ZOS for that. But, it doesn't force quotas or dues.
I'm sure a number of the people who institute quotas or dues gleefully point the finger at ZOS and say, "See, they're forcing us to do it," but it was, ultimately, their choice.
you are right, for example, after u23 mournhold guild X has three choices
- a) stay its spot as where it has been for years - inevitable choice here it needs to increase bids
- b) go elsewhere, nothing changed on reqs
- c) get rid of guild
assuming we got scenario a) then gm has two options
- a1) increase reqs
- a2) find gold elsewhere
my logic would go for a1. yes thats a choice
A, B, and C, all ignore one, critical, piece of information about the U23 changes: bid placed on traders you do not win, are refunded.
This means, that while the U23 changes did push guilds to having a bit more cash on hand, it was a one time expense. As, an unsuccessful bids are "free."
I was in 2 trading guilds. One hiked the sales requirements from 20k to 50k+5k fee or 500k (so I left since there is no chance I would be able to meet those targets considering 20k was already a struggle on weeks I was less active). The other one has no fees, but it lost the trader that it had without interruption for a year or so.
So now I guess I'll be using the Nirn Auction House addon to sell stuff, and *** this abomination of a trading system.
starkerealm wrote: »I was in 2 trading guilds. One hiked the sales requirements from 20k to 50k+5k fee or 500k (so I left since there is no chance I would be able to meet those targets considering 20k was already a struggle on weeks I was less active). The other one has no fees, but it lost the trader that it had without interruption for a year or so.
So now I guess I'll be using the Nirn Auction House addon to sell stuff, and *** this abomination of a trading system.
Wasn't that the one that was put together by the guy who was ripping off TTC's code?
starkerealm wrote: »starkerealm wrote: »MLGProPlayer wrote: »Guild dues are on the hands of guilds, not ZOS. When you say you don't blame the guilds, you are incorrect in that assumption. It is 100% up to the guild on how much to charge dues if any.
That's not entirely true. The trader system forces guilds to institute minimum sales requirements/dues.
Some guilds are better equipped than others at making bids. Some guilds will have GMs/key members who make tens of millions of gold weekly and can rely on their donations to make bids without a high sales requirement for the members. Other guilds might not have as many big ticket traders, which means they need to make their gold from taxes and donations/raffles/auctions, thus you'll see higher sales requirements/dues in those guilds.
That's not entirely true. The system does incentivize pooling resources, you can point the finger at ZOS for that. But, it doesn't force quotas or dues.
I'm sure a number of the people who institute quotas or dues gleefully point the finger at ZOS and say, "See, they're forcing us to do it," but it was, ultimately, their choice.
you are right, for example, after u23 mournhold guild X has three choices
- a) stay its spot as where it has been for years - inevitable choice here it needs to increase bids
- b) go elsewhere, nothing changed on reqs
- c) get rid of guild
assuming we got scenario a) then gm has two options
- a1) increase reqs
- a2) find gold elsewhere
my logic would go for a1. yes thats a choice
A, B, and C, all ignore one, critical, piece of information about the U23 changes: bid placed on traders you do not win, are refunded.
This means, that while the U23 changes did push guilds to having a bit more cash on hand, it was a one time expense. As, an unsuccessful bids are "free."
sorry but who cares the refund? this has nothing to do with refunds.
people are fighting to stay in X spot they have been for years.
now X spot has 10 times more competitors. If GM wants to stay in X position he or she now needs to bid more.
before u23, if you want to win X spot lets say you bid 10million. you dont have too many competitors as there were no back for them
after u23, if you want to X spot you need to bid 30 million. People have more courage as they can bid 10.
VaranisArano wrote: »Hilariously, this guild ought to be asking for 429k in weekly sales, not 360k.
What?
Guilds only make 3.5% of the sales requirements back in the form of sales taxes. This means that most PC trading guilds lose money on having sales requirements instead of simply requiring a flat fee.
Flat fee: 15,000 gold
360k sales requirement = 12,600 gold
65k sales requirement = 2,275 gold
So while it might be aggravating that your weekly fee went up to a level close to what console guilds experience, the apparently dramatic increase in sales requirement doesnt surprise me one bit, and it actually generates less money for,your guild than the fee. Most PC players just don't realize how much less money their trading guilds make from sales requirements.
Another example from two of my trading guilds, both of whom regularly had good positions. (Caveat: Data is prior to Multibidding.)
My guild 1: fee of 5k, sales requirement 25k
3.5% of 25k = 875 gold.
Ideal Sales Requirement to equal fees: 143k
My guild 2: fee of 1k, sales requirement 5k
3.5% of 5k = 175 gold.
Ideal sales requirement to equal fees: 29k
In both cases, those guilds set their sales requirement too low if they wanted to make the same gold from players who sell vs players who don't.
Sales requirements are a giant subsidy for players who actually sell the required value of items. They get to generate less direct money for the guild in return for increasing the volume/value of the guild's goods.
So consider that the next time you see a sales requirement go up. PC trading guilds almost always make more money from fees than sales requirements because the 3.5% sales tax requires a lot of sales to be equivalent to the fees. Usually, that's a lot more sales than most players are willing to commit to.
Amusingly, just pay your fee and pat yourself on the back for directly contributing more gold to the guild than most of the people who only make their sales requirement!
sorry but who cares the refund? this has nothing to do with refunds.
people are fighting to stay in X spot they have been for years.
now X spot has 10 times more competitors. If GM wants to stay in X position he or she now needs to bid more.
before u23, if you want to win X spot lets say you bid 10million. you dont have too many competitors as there were no back for them
after u23, if you want to X spot you need to bid 30 million. People have more courage as they can bid 10.
I was in 2 trading guilds. One hiked the sales requirements from 20k to 50k+5k fee or 500k (so I left since there is no chance I would be able to meet those targets considering 20k was already a struggle on weeks I was less active). The other one has no fees, but it lost the trader that it had without interruption for a year or so.
starkerealm wrote: »I was in 2 trading guilds. One hiked the sales requirements from 20k to 50k+5k fee or 500k (so I left since there is no chance I would be able to meet those targets considering 20k was already a struggle on weeks I was less active). The other one has no fees, but it lost the trader that it had without interruption for a year or so.
So now I guess I'll be using the Nirn Auction House addon to sell stuff, and *** this abomination of a trading system.
Wasn't that the one that was put together by the guy who was ripping off TTC's code?
Don't know, you got any proof?
starkerealm wrote: »VelimOrthic wrote: »You keep coming back to this point but never explaining it. I don't see a problem with someone unable to come up with 15k being excluded from Four zones. I'm sorry but it just sounds outright absurd to say what you seem to be saying.Loves_guars wrote: »Hapexamendios wrote: »What system you on where they’re asking that much? 65k is ridiculous to begin with. I’m in a couple trading giilds on PS4 NA and they’re asking 15-20k weekly.
casuals get excluded from the system, when they should be included to shorten the breach between them and rich players.
You say "casual don't need main city trader" but actually yes, because in this way, the distance between poor and rich widens more and more.
Shouldn't you be getting ~300 x 6 characters x 7 days = 12,600 just from turning in writs alone? Or is my math way off.
Either way, players in capital guilds want to be highly competitive because they find that fun. It doesn't sound like you've got this quality. If I ran one of those guilds, I wouldn't see any reason why I should let you waste that roster space.
Six characters doing writs should return 27.6k per day (roughly).
Philgo68 wrote:I've looked at the provided source to the EXE and the LUA addon code itself. While I see no malicious code, there are still a few serious concerns.
1. The EXE provided does not necessarily come from the provided source code. It would be interesting to setup a system where a panel of ESO community members, or the ESOUI team, could compile addons like this (as there are a few of them out there) to make sure we have EXEs that match the code provided. (Just an aside, was a similar stink raise when TTC came out? TTC has an EXE and an AutoUpdater too.)
2. The EXE rewrites pieces of the LUA CODE portion of the addon. So when you /ReloadUI you are getting whatever new LUA code the EXE has written. This is used to get data back into the game from the EXE, but could be used to install LUA code that your ESO game starts running without any review at all. It's an interesting way to handle the data issue, and also mimics TTC's solution to that problem.
Which leads me to my last comment from an addon developer point of view...
The EXE and LUA code for this addon are HEAVILY borrowed from other's work. I don't mean there are a few sections of code here and there that look familiar, I mean LARGE sections of the code are simply cut and pasted. And to my eye, some of the code left in place from those addons indicates the author does not fully understand the code they are using. Steven Chen (of TTC fame) wrote the DLL that is being used, and it seems like other large pieces of the exe source came from TTC. The core LUA code came from Price Tracker and Itemization Browser (The Auction List window has "Itemization Browser" as it's title on my system, since I also have IB installed.) I now see the tiniest of nods has been made to Steven on the Addon page on ESOUI, but some proper credit is due to a number of other folks also. For me, the way this addon has been hacked together leaves serious concern about the stability and security of the system as a whole.
starkerealm wrote: »VelimOrthic wrote: »You keep coming back to this point but never explaining it. I don't see a problem with someone unable to come up with 15k being excluded from Four zones. I'm sorry but it just sounds outright absurd to say what you seem to be saying.Loves_guars wrote: »Hapexamendios wrote: »What system you on where they’re asking that much? 65k is ridiculous to begin with. I’m in a couple trading giilds on PS4 NA and they’re asking 15-20k weekly.
casuals get excluded from the system, when they should be included to shorten the breach between them and rich players.
You say "casual don't need main city trader" but actually yes, because in this way, the distance between poor and rich widens more and more.
Shouldn't you be getting ~300 x 6 characters x 7 days = 12,600 just from turning in writs alone? Or is my math way off.
Either way, players in capital guilds want to be highly competitive because they find that fun. It doesn't sound like you've got this quality. If I ran one of those guilds, I wouldn't see any reason why I should let you waste that roster space.
Six characters doing writs should return 27.6k per day (roughly).
And 5 max level thieves can generate 20k per day each, just in green, blue, and purple treasures alone, not counting motifs, furnishings, and furnishing plans to sell to players.... which can be worth a lot more.
lordrichter wrote: »The other thing to remember is that this is all a massive gold sink. Massive. (I would love to see the numbers from ZOS, and am sure it would cause a lot of jaws to drop.)